losing a family member v quickly

74jax · 20 June 2015 at 8:55PM

Just a wondering, mods feel free to move to discussion if needed.

My dad is suffering immensely with cancer throughout his body and severe lukiemia. Been like this for years, altho the last year is pretty heart breaking.

My friend at work had her mum go in to hospital with an illness, diagnosed of cancer within a week and sadly died three weeks later.

She said I'm so lucky to have time with my dad and she would give anything to have her mum back. But dad can't walk, is in pain, can't eat, too Ill for chemo. I wish he would just give up, but clearly isn't ready.

Don't really know what I'm asking, but what is better. A prolonged many years drawn out illness or short good health but bad few weeks, no time to say good bye........

thescouselander · 20 June 2015 at 9:02PM

So sorry to hear your situation. I recently lost my mum after she was diagnosed with bowel cancer. Initially we thought it was operable but during the operation to remove the primary cancer they found it had spread. Even so the prognosis was that with a bit of chemo she might have another year or so with us. Unfortunately it was not to be and she never recovered from the operation because, unknown to everyone until very late, it had also got into her bones.

The time from diagnosis to her passing away must have only been around 6 weeks - it came as a big shock. Obviously we would have all been thankful for a bit more time to say goodbye but my mum was in a lot of pain in her final weeks and I wouldn't have wanted that to continue for too long.

swingaloo · 20 June 2015 at 9:03PM

I think that depends on the person and family left behind. My dad had a very drawn out cancer and also got dementia. He suffered terribly the last couple of years and I wouldn't want that for anyone. I know my dad would not have wished to go through the last few years as he did. I wouldn't want him back to spend more time with him as he was for his sake.

I have another relative who has recovered from cancer but has a heart condition. I would far rather his heart stopped and he died without warning not having the chance to say goodbye than have the cancer return and him have a slow prolonged no quality of life death.

Its selfish to want someone to stay for your sake when the best thing for them would be to let go.

Saffagal · 20 June 2015 at 9:23PM

Although you may have the time to say goodbye if death takes time to arrive through illness, the person you love is likely to be suffering with their quality of life reducing.
Personally, I would choose a sudden death every time. Everyone who has lost someone they love would like another day, another smile, another minute with their loved one - but you'd also like them to be happy, healthy and pain free in that minute/ smile/ day.

jackomdj · 20 June 2015 at 9:38PM

I think it is better for someone to pass without too much suffering, but better for the family if they have a chance to come to terms with it and talk about anything that they need to/say their goodbyes.

I am sure your friend is thinking of her loss rather than the suffering you have to see.

Spendless · 20 June 2015 at 9:47PM

Have asked myself this many times. 12+ years ago, we persuaded my then 79 yo grandmother to go ahead with an op she needed to take away her Cancer, even though she was reluctant to do so. Though she recovered, she never again enjoyed the health she'd had prior to the op. Today she's still alive aged 91 in a Nursing home, and she wishes she didn't have to live there because she went on to develop mixed dementia. Were we right to persuade her to have the op?

I really think for the family it is better for them to get chance to say goodbye, but for the person concerned a quick demise, without drawn out pain or suffering is best.

enthusiasticsaver · 20 June 2015 at 10:03PM

I have seen both sides of this dilemma.

My dad died from a massive heart attack at 63 twenty two years ago which was a dreadful shock for the family and meant he did not get to enjoy any retirement and missed out on the birth and growing up of his 4 grandchildren. For the family it was appalling but if he had not regained full health after the heart attack he would have hated being dependent on other people.

My MIL on the other hand developed dementia about five or six years ago at the age of 84 and only just died earlier on this year even though she could not hold a conversation, live independently and was doubly incontinent and dependent on others to help shower and feed her. She longed for death in her lucid moments but clung on to the bitter end until eventually the doctor said no intervention when her swallowing reflex meant she could no longer eat even if fed.

Losing a family member v quickly is terrible for the family as you get no chance to say goodbye or prepare but for those who suffer a quick death they avoid the loss of independence and dignity which most of us value. I know which I would choose and even though I mourned my Dad greatly I know he would have hated to end up like my MIL so for his sake I think a quick death is preferable.

fierystormcloud · 20 June 2015 at 10:07PM

Bless you 74jax, and your dad and your family; this must be so tough for you all.

As people have said, it's probably best for people suffering to go quickly, but not better for the people left behind of course.

I wish you all well, and hope that one way or another, you are all OK soon.

Newwashingmachine · 20 June 2015 at 10:10PM

So sorry for what you're going through and I think it's a little insensitive of your friend to say that you're lucky (this is a very sad situation you're in).

For me I found it better (once I got over the initial shock) when my father died quickly and without being in any pain.

I saw my grandmother go from a strong large women in weeks when she died of cancer. Not a nice thing for anyone to go through and actually knowing you are definitely going to die is terrible - just terrible.

Hugs to you through this sad time.

coolcait · 20 June 2015 at 10:21PM

My thoughts are with you, OP - and with anyone who is dealing with the illness or loss of a loved one.

My own view, having lost one loved one suddenly to a heart attack, and another slowly to cancer, is that the quick and sudden death is better for the individual.

I'd go so far as to say that - in the long run - it's also better for those left behind.

My memories of the life of the person who died suddenly are all good memories.

My good memories of the life of the person who died slowly are overlaid with the difficult memories from the end of their life.

My motto now is "make sure that you say everything you need to say to your loved ones every day, while they're hale and hearty".

Don't leave it until they're ill, or dying - or miss the opportunity entirely by leaving it until they no longer recognise you, or have died.

That way, if your loved one gets the blessed release of a quick death, you won't have to deal with regret on top of all the other emotions you are going through.

Anatidaephobia · 20 June 2015 at 10:34PM

Having experienced both, I don't think either way is "better" than the other - they are both terrible, awful things to go through but in slightly different ways.

Telling you that you're lucky seems rather tactless. Losing someone you love is horrific regardless of whether it happens suddenly or not. However, I can understand, in theory, why someone who has lost a parent might think someone else is lucky to still have time with theirs, although they're looking at it from a bit of a quantity over quality perspective. I think it's just because the grass always seems greener... if you've been through something awful one way, you imagine that any other way must surely be better (because how could it be worse?).

losing a family member v quickly

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free